This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Their legal justification was a bastardized interpretation of an amendment that was decided on multiple times in the past. This isnt the first time this issue has come up, nor is it the first time the 14th was considered. They used personal opinion and emotional appeal to force it to fit where Supreme Court justices on several occasions in the past said they did not fit.

It is what it is. An opinion based on feelings, not law. And so be it. This is the system we have.

No, personal opinion and emotion is what you are using to decide that the state has a legitimate interest in denying same-sex couples a marriage license.

If the objection is a sincere, established religious belief, any attempt to force someone to participate violates the first amendment.

No, it doesn't. It didn't work for the Piggy Park guy, it won't work here. And the SCOTUS has already refused to uphold this as any sort of reality by refusing to hear the argument with the photographer.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Yes, I have read the plain English of the United States Constitution as written and as amended and I expect it to be upheld and followed by the government that would have no authority to exist or to do anything whatsoever without it.

When they grievously break this contract, there is no reason for anyone else to follow it.

Actually, if Roe v. Wade and the commerce clause aren't overturned / restrained, respectively, it is the end of any sort of United States worth having, living in, or fighting for.

The court needs to swing back to limiting the expansion of federal power, which is the purpose of the entire philosophy of limited government and negative liberty that this nation is built upon. If it can't or won't do its job, then stick a fork in it.

Doubling down on the nonsense of Roe is not a good sign.

If you live long enough you will see the court move farther to the left.

In about 30 years the GOP will be reduced to a small, regional, party when the demographic change which is building up right now hits it like a tidal wave.

"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.

Yeah the tax breaks are appealing, but the risk of paying alimony to an adult human being outweighs that, logically

Not if you aren't taking care of her. Alimony is not common unless there is a difference in the amount of support one adult human has been providing to another, and that is due mainly to their roles in the marriage.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

No, it doesn't. It didn't work for the Piggy Park guy, it won't work here. And the SCOTUS has already refused to uphold this as any sort of reality by refusing to hear the argument with the photographer.

Yes it does.

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”